

.m 



HOLUNGER 
pH8J 

MILL RUN F3-1543 




DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA. 



HON. R. Mf Ti HUNTER. OF VIRGINIA, 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 31, 1850, 



O-" 



^' ' 



On suspem/ing our Diplomatic Relations with Austria. 



The Sentitc proceeded to the consideration of 
the foilowini,' resolution, submitted on the 24lh 
ultimo, i>y Mr. Cass: 

Resolvcil, That the Coininiltpe on Foreign UelatinnB he 
instrui'ind to inquire into tin- expcdifncy of suspending 
diplonintic rolaliona witli Austria. 

Mr. HUNTER addressed the Senate as follows: 
Mr. Presiuf.n't: 1 had supposed at one time 
that this resolution would have been permitted to 
sleep upon the table. Had such been the dispo- 
sition of the mover, I should never have called it 
up; for I had no desire to speak upon its merits. 
But when I found that we were to be pressed to a 
vote upon it, I felt it to be due to myself and those 
whom I represent, to ofler the reasons which in- 
fluence my vote. This resolution has not only 
the sanction of hi^h autliority here, but a large 
portion of the press has sustained it; and efforts 
nave been made to give public opinion such a di- 
rection as to place under its ban ail those who op- 
pose it. Gentlemen seem to suppose so, at least; ; 
for various propositions have been made to express i 
our sympathy, as a Government, for the Hunga- 
rians, in some other mode, by those who have op- ! 
posed this particular form of action. Most of 
those who have spoken .seem to contemplate the 
propriety at least, if not the necessity, of express- 
ing our sympathy in the Hungarian cause in some 
form of legislative action. As I find myself op- 
posed to the propositions which have yet been 
made upon this subject, it is perhaps necessary for 
my own defence to trouble you with a brief state- 
ment of my views upon this question; and in 
giving them I shall confine myself to the prop- 
osition before us. That, sir, if I understand it, 
proposes to suspend our diplomatic intercourse 
with Austria, for the purpose, avowed in debate, 
of expressing our indignation at the conduct of 
that Government in the late Hungarian struggle. 
Now,. sir, when this resolution is considered, 
with all its attendant circumstances, I am utterly 
opposed to it for many reasons. I oppose it, 
in the first place, because it is founded upon 
an utter misconception, as it seems to me, of 
the nature and objects of diplomatic institutions. 
This resolution seems to suppose that one of the 
uses which may be made of them is to reward or 
punish other Governments by continuing or sus- 
pending such relations, according as we ap- 
prove or condemn their course towards their own 
subjects. Now, sir, they have never been used as 
a means of punishing other Governments in any 
instance of which I can find an account in history. 



Ministers arc di.-imisscd in time of war, it is true, 
not as a punishment to the Government, but us a 
measure of safety and precaution at hoine. 

To use relations of this sort for such a purpose 
would be to reverse the design for which they were 
created. They were designed as the means of 
settling disjiutes and jircscrving peace; they are 
maintained to substitute the more convenient forna 
of oral conference for written communications. 
They bring the parties together, and by personal 
presence and proximity facilitate tlic settlement of 
differences. The whole object of such agencies is 
the preservation of peace, and it is contrary to the 
universal sense of civilized men to use such rela- 
tions as the means of national insult and offence. 

I am opposed to this proposition, also, for 
another reason. Supposing it to be founded upon 
true principles, its application is partial, unequal, 
and in that sense, is unjust. This objection has 
already been made, and a proposition, I believe, 
is now pending to add Russia to the list of the 
courts with which our diplomatic relations are to 
be suspended. Assuredly there would be as much 
reason for thus punishing Russia as Austria; for 
the offence is the same or even worse. What shall 
we say to France, too, if we are to assume this 
general supervision of the conduct of foreign Gov- 
ernments? Is there nothing in the course of the 
French Government in Italy to shock our repub- 
lican sensibilities? Have they not interfered 
against the rights of man and popular liberty, ac- 
cording to our conception of the terms? Nay, 
sir, the conduct of His Holiness himself is not 
beyond the reach of our criticism; for his course 
towards his subjects has' been utterly opposed to 
our view of his duties and their rights. We ought, 
then, in order to be just, to suspend our diplomatic 
relations with all of these courts — Austria, Russia, 
France, and Rome. 1 am not sure, sir, that the 
list would stop here, if I chose to pursue this ex- 
amination further. Cut it is unnecessary for my 
purpose to continue the investigation; 1 have said 
enough to show the inequality of the proposition 
as it now stands. But i have a tliird objection to 
this resolution, which is founded on the fact that 
it casts reproach on our history and past conduct 
towards foreign Governments — a reproach which, 
in my opinion, has not been deserved by thesages 
and patriots who have gone before us, or, indeed, 
I by any of those who have hitherto been responsible 
for the course of our Government. If, r.s this 
resolution assumes, it is our duty to observe 
' the conduct of foreign Governments towards 



In-aiS} 



TTAS 



their own subjects, and to punish them in this 
mode for acts of oppression towards iheir citi- 
zens, or for violations of the rights of man ac- 
cording to our conception of tlieir nature, then, 
sir, in times past we have grievously failed in 
the discharge of our obligations. From the in- 
stiUition of our Government up to this period, how 
often ought we not to have exercised this power 
in the discharge of such duties ! With how many 
Governments should we not have suspended such 
relations at the lime of the partition of Poland ! 
With how many during the aggressive wars of 
Napoleon ! Which of the European nations would 
have escaped after the treaty of Vienna, and during 
the existence of the Holy Alliance? Why, sir, we 
could not have recalled ministers fast enough about 
that period to have signalized our abhorrence of the 
daily violation of the rights of man, in the arbi- 
trary disruption of territories long united together, 
and the forced connection ofpeople to Governments 
to which they were averse. I should waste the 
time of the Senate, if I were to attempt the enu- 
meration of the cases in which we have failed to act 
as this resolution assumes we ought to have done. 
Ho w often should we have suspended relations with 
France, with England! Indeed, what Government 
is there in the civilized world with whom we 
should not have suspended our relations at some 
period of our'history, according to the principles 
now laid down? Perhaps we might have pre- | 
served diplomatic relations with the republic of 
San Marino, by way of showing that it was possi- 
ble to maintain such a connection witli somebody, 
according to the principles of action which we had 
laid down upon such sulijects. Sir, if this resolu- 
tion be right, then our Government has been griev- 
ously wrong in its past course in relation to these 
matters. To vote for this resolution is to record 
that censure. For one, 1 am not willing to do it. 
I believe they acted wisely and well. They de- 
served the thanks of mankind for their foreign 
policy, which has won, as I had supposed, uni- 
versal respect. 

But, Mr. President, I object to this resolution, 
also, because it is indefinite in its nature. We are 
to suspend diplomatic relations for how long? 
Until Austria either establishes a government to |l 
suit not herself or the Hungarians, bn.t to suit us i; 
in that province, or until she makes an apology to | 
us for her misconduct to her own subjects. These |i 
are the only modes of atoning for the offence upon || 
which we have acted. Having once entered upon li 
the affair, we could not withdraw from it with 1 
honor, nniil some such satisfaction was afforded. 
Should we have a right to expect such a termina- 
tion of the difficulty? Could we ever hope thus | 
to humble the pride of the Austrian Government? : 
I think not; and, if so, this suspension of diplo- ■ 
matic relations would be for an indefinite period. | 
But the question of time is not the only thing left , 
indefinite in these resolutions; the manner in which j 
the deed is to be done is also indefinite. We are ; 
to suspend diplomatic relations with Austria. In j 
what manner? By merely recalling our own min- I 
ister, or by offering passports to the Austrian j 
charge who is now near this Government? This 
resolution, to be consistent with itself, ought to do 
both; for these relations would not be suspended i 
if an Austrian minister were here. But it may be j 
said that, under the circumstances connected with ; 
the passage of this resolution, Austria would cer- ; 



tainly recall her minister. Undoubtedly, she would 
be forced to do so from self-respect; and, although 
it would have been more manly to have dismissed 
their minister at once, yet it would be done as cer- 
tainly and effectually in this indirect mode as in 
the other. We constrain the minister to depart as 
much by one mode of action as the other. Now, 
sir, if I am right in this construction of the resolu- 
tion — and I maintain that I am, whatever may 
have been the intentions of its author — we, in ef- 
fect, deny to Austria the right of embassy to us — 
a right secured to every sovereign Stale at peace 
with us by the well-established law of nations. I 
need not quote authors upon national law for so 
well-established a principle as that of the right of 
every sovereign State to send ministers to another 
.sovereign State whilst there is peace between 
them. There is no respectable writer on the law 
of nations, with whom I am acquainted, who does 
not recognize this right. Indeed, it belongs to the 
very nature of diplomatic functions that such a 
right should exist. These were created to settle 
disputes and secure peace. As ministers of peace,, 
these persons are respected by all civilized nations 
and men: civilized man shows his homage to 
peace by the .■securities and safeguards with which 
he surrounds such m.issions. Nay, under certain 
precautions and formalities, the right of embassy 
exists even as between belligerents; otherwise all 
the avenues to peace would be closed, except those 
of contjuest on the one side and absolute submis- 
sion on the other. It is and ought to be the uni- 
versal sense of civilized man that the doors of 
peace are never to be closed. Instances have beeh 
cited, 1 know, in contravention of this principle, 
but they were not even exceptions to the rule. It 
has been said that a Government may dismiss a 
foreign minister. So it may for his personal mis- 
conduct, but not for the act.'? of his Government, 
unless tills dismissal is the precursor of war. 

There are instances enough, I know, of minis- 
ters who were dismissed for personal offences 
which they could not claim to commit near another 
Government, under any immunity pretended to be 
derived from the law of nations. The Duke of 
Orleans, when Regent of France, during the mi- 
nority of Louis XV., imprisoned a Spanish min- 
ister; but hedetectf:d him in plots not only against 
his life, but his Government. So, too, in other 
cases of personal offences against the municipal 
law, or for insults offered to it, passports have 
been given by the offended Governments near 
which the ministers resided. But this right of dis- 
missal, even for alleged personal misconduct, is 
by no means absolute. We have had a very re- 
cent case in the dismissal of Sir Henry Buhver by 
the Spanish Government; and Lord Palmerslon, 
in his correspondence with M. Isluriz, the Span- 
ish minister, upon that subject, controverts very 
ably a doctrine which he alleges was advanced 
by the Duke of Sotomayor, " that any gov- 
'< ernment was entitled to obtain the recall of any 
] foreign minister, whenever, for reasons of its ewn, 
I it might wish that he should be removed." "It 
! is quite true," says Lord Palmerston, "as said 
by the Duke of Sotomayor, that the law of na- 
I tions and international usage may permit a gov- 
ernment to make such a demand; but the law of 
nations and international usage also entitle the 
Government, to whom such a request may be pre- 
ferred, to decline to comply with it." He says. 



( ' 



f 



B 



in support of his view, that it may IiHppnn that 
the very cjiiise of tho dcsirfi lo ijct ml fif him is to 
be found it) the fidelity of the tuinister to his 
trust. He mt\y urs;e with perseverance a claiin of 
his own Government, which is dia.'iirr<"<'nl>le to the 
Government to which he is Bcerediied. But be 
this as it may, theRe instaiires do not nfTw't the 
rifflit of embassy, which belongs to every sover- 
eisn Slate whilst nt peace. To deny tills ri^hl 
ts an insult to the Government thus ii!;^;^rieved,and 
a violation of the law of nations. Vattel says, B. 
4, chap. 5, sec. 63: 

"A RdVPreien alli'mptitiij lo liinitrr nnnllKT from Hrnrtin; 
and roceiviiii; puhlic iiiitiisli'rs does him an injury, and nf- 
fendiineainst lli(> law nriiiilioii.s. It it nltiickiiiK it iiiilion in 
one of its most vnluahii' rifjIiL-", and o|i|MiKini; wliiit ii.iuin: 
herself civcs to ovory iiidi-|)endi'ii( society. Il Is lirnikini; 
the bonds hv which natioMH are united, and ollt-nding them 
all." 

Why, sir, this denial of the ri£;ht of embassy 
to us by the French Government was once a c^use 
of p;rave complaint on our ]iart. The preamble of 
the act of Congress which, in 17!IS, abro^jated the 
treaties between us and France, recited the dis- 
mis.sal of our minister as one of the causes of 
Grievance which justified the course of the United 
States towards that I'ower — a course which led to 
the state of hostilities which was called "« quasi 
war." Why, sir, as I said before, lo deny the 
right of eml)assy, is to shut the door of peace; and 
I trust we shall not be found settinesuch an exam- 
ple in this age of boasted refinement and progress. 
When this resolution is viewed in connection with 
all its attendant circumstances, I think I might ' 
venture to challenge the production of a precedent 
which shall sanction it. 

There is, however, another, and, in my view, 
still more fatal olijection to the proposition before 
us. Il assumes the rijht of one Government to in- 
terfere in the domestic affairs of another — a right 
which would be dangerous, in the last degree, to 
the petice and liberties of mankind. If this reso- 
lution have any meaning at all, it must be intended 
as a rebuke to Austria for her conduct, not towards 
us, but towards her own subjects. The whole 
proceeding would be utterly without meaning, if 
It had not been based upon the avowed grounds 
of indignation and abhorrence at the course of the 
Austrian Government towards the Hungarians, to- 
wards its own sultjecls. Upon such ground.s as 
these, this measure would be a ffagranfand direct 
insult to the Austrian Government. An insult is :; 
an injury, and an injury often of the deepest kind. '' 
" National honor is national property of the lii^h- ! 
est value. The sentiment in the mind of every 
citizen is national strength. It oueht therefore to ! 
be cherished " — said Mr. Monroe in his inaugural ' 
address. Now, if we have a right to punish Aus- \^ 
tria for her conduct towards the Hun?arians in ! 
this mode, why not in any other.' If the right to j 
punish for such an offence exists at all, it must exist 
to such an extent as may he necessary to afl^ord a 
remedy for the evil. If we have the ri^ht to pun- 
ish them i)y insults, why not by blows ? No man ; 
can .show any distinction in principle between the j 
two pretensions. ' 

If the right exists at all, it exists to whatever ' 
extent may be necessary to make it effectual. •' 
Now this claim to punish a foreign Governmoiit 
for its conduct towards its own subjects assumed ' 
the right to supervi.'^e and control their manage- 
ment of their domestic affairs. Can any pretension • 



' be coHL-ci ved which in more arrogant and insulting ? 
It is a virtual denial of the sovereignly of the for- 
eign Sinie u()on wlii'-h we are acting. For if 
Hovereicn at all, the government — no, the people — 
' according lo our notions, conotitulc ihr sucireme 
nulhorily in the land, and ihey would not be su- 
preme in authority if another nation could control 
them. 

Mr. FOdTK. I do not wish lo interrupt my 
friend at all, but I am «ure he will be misunder- 
stood in a manner disagreeable lo himself. His 
present words would lead ua to understand — I do 
not believe he meant to be so understood — thai il 
is his o[)inion that the Government of Ausiiia ig 
legitimately supreme in Hungary, which I will 
certainly deny, and attempt lo prove if the hon- 
; orable Senator insists. 

Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman had aifnded 
' to what I said, he woulil have perceived that I 
' modified the proposition so as lo adapt the propo- 
sition to our particular views. But it matters not 
' lo this argument in what part of that body politic 
the sovereignty resides. Il is siiffirient for us that 
the sovereignty of that country is not in us, that it 
resides somewhere there, and is entitled to ronlrol 
the domestic afl'airs of that country, without su- 
pervision or interference on our [part. There is no 
supreme power there, if we can control it. Every 
existing Government is supposed lo be the crea- 
tion of the sovereign power in the State until it is 
overthrown, and foreign nations must respect it as 
the representative of that sovereignty, so long as it 
is clothed with its powers. I say, then, Mr. 
President, that this resolution assumes the right lo 
interfere in the domestic atTairs of olher nations, 
and in so doing makes a pretension neither con- 
sistent with the laws of mtions nor consonant 
with our own views of the rights of man. I will 
dispose of the latter liranch of the proposition first, 
because it may be done most briefly. Is not this 
assumption of control in the affair* of Hungary a' 
claim "pro tnnlo^'' of the right of government 
there? I see no distinction between the two: and, 
if so, we are claiming to govern those who did not 
delegate to us that right. I thought that it was a 
cardinal maxim with us, the fundamental prin- 
ciple of our institutions, that men had the right of 
self-government. And yet we claim the right to 
interfere in the domestic affairs of a people who 
gave us no authority to represent them, and of 
whose language, wishes, and necessities, we are 
ignorant. Do such pretensions as these square 
with our notions of republican principle.' I think 
not, sir; and yet, in our effort to show a sympathy 
for human rights, we are called unon so to net as 
to negative the most precious of all social rights — 
the right of man to self-government. But, Mr. 
President, this claim of interverftion is opf>osed to 
the law of nations; and this resolution renounces 
all that has been gained in the amelioration of that 
code for the protection of ihc right of self-govern- 
ment by the friends of human lilicrty in the course 
of the present century, .^.s the law of nations is 
now expounded, no nation is allowed the right of 
interference in the domestic affairs of another, ex- 
cept when it becomes rieces.sarv to do so for its 
own peace nud safety; or, in other wonis, in self- 
defence. Does our proposed interference in this 
cnse come within the exception which I have just 
stated .' No man can say that it does. Mr. Pres- 
ident, I will venture the assertion that, since the 



treaty of Westphalia, no such broad pretension 
has been made to the right of intervention by any 
civilized nation, which has not led to such conse- 
quences as discourag;ed the repetition of such acts, 
or which has not been opposed by some one of 
the first-rate Powers of Europe as a violation of 
the law of nations. I say since the peace of West- 
phalia, because that was a war of religion, a civil 
war in the great Christian republic between Catho- 
licand Protestant, who fought wheneverand where- 
ever they met each other, without reference to dis- 
tinctions of territorial boundary or of race. Since that 
time there have been cases of intervention, I know; 
but they were followed by the consequences which 
I have stated. I shall have cited to me, perhaps, 
the interference of other European powers with 
revolutionary France. But were the consequences 
such as to encourage the repetition of the experi- 
ment? Why, sir, France launched herself like a 
fire-ship amidst the nations of the earth, and kept 
all Europe in uproar and conflagration for nearly 
the third of a century. The consequences of this 
intervention were such as to teach Europe a les- 
son on this subject which it has remembered and 
respected. There have been two popular revolu- 
tions in France since that period; but no other 
Governments have interfered, although they prob- 
ably would have been glad to have done so, had 
they not remembered the past. France, herself, 
sir, has not forgotten the lesson; for she, too, de- 
clared the doctrine of non-intervention in the af- 
fairs of neighboring Governments, even in her first 
outbreak of republican zeal. The exception she 
made to the rule was, that she would interfere in 
favor of popular rights, if other nations interposed 
against them. Indeed, scarcely a case can be cited 
in which the powers interfeiing did not justify 
the act by assigning some other reason for it than 
that of the right to interpose. In the case of 
Greece, they justified themselves under the neces- 
sity — pretended jor real — of keeping open the Le- 
vant for their commerce. And so in relation to the 
interposition between Turkey and Egypt by certain 
great powers of Europe. They pretended, as a jus- 
tification , that they interfered to preserve the balance 
of power in Europe which was concerned in this 
question. Whether these pretences were true or 
false, the necessity for making them was a tacit 
homage to the great principle of non-intervention. 
It is true that the holy alliance did make at one 
time more extensive pretensions on this head than 
were recognized as just either then or now. These 
pretensions alarmed the friends of human liberty 
all over the world, and created great anxiety even 
here. This was one of the causes which led to 
Mr. Monroe's celebrated declaration, to which I 
shall presently refer more particularly. Great 
Britain, too, protested against these claims, which 
were viewed as alarming ever, to ner. She pro- 
tested against the intervention of other powers in 
the affairs of Naples as a violation of the law of 
nations, which she laid down upon this subject, as 
I have before stated. She refused to attend the 
Congress of Verona, and when France, under the 
sanction of certain of the great Powers of Europe, 
interfered in the affdirs of Spain, Great Britain de- 
clared it to be an infraction of national law and a 
just cause for war if she chose to make it so. 
Then it was that alarm was felt both in England 
and this country, lest the Holy Alliance should 
claim the right of interposing in the contest be- 



tween Spain and her colonies. Both Governmentg 
protested in advance, and the consequence of their 
joint action was the establishment of the non-inter- 
vention principle upon a firmer basis than it had 
ever rested upon before. This achievement was 
the great glory of Mr. Monroe's administration, 
which has challenged the respect and gratitude of 
the friends of liberty wherever they were found. 
The establishment of this principle is the great bul- 
wark and security of the right of man to self-govern- 
ment, so far as national law can protect it at all. 
Now, sir, how earnestly did we hope that it would 
be respected in the late French revolution ! How 
universally was it said that the hope for the success 
of France in that efibrt for liberty mainly depended 
upon the non-intervention of surrounding Powers ! 
Sir, we have had a very recent and an interesting 
instanceof the dangerand offensivenessof such pre- 
tensions on the part of one government towards 
another. One of the causes of the recent diflference 
between Great Britain and Spain grew out of a 
dispatch from Lord Palmerston to the Duke of 
Sotomayor, which the latter construed as an inter- 
ference with the domestic affairs of Spain, and 
therefore an insult. And yet this was not a public 
act of the English minister, but a private letter of 
advice to the Spanish Government to be more lib- 
eral in its concessions to its subjects. The Spanish 
pride took fire; it was resisted as an act of intru- 
sion and insult. The Duke of Sotomayor, in a 
letter to Mr. Bulwer, asks how the British Gov- 
ernment would take it, if he were to advise it to 
be more liberal to the Irish, more kindly to its 
Asiatic subjects, and less stringent in its coercive 
measures at home — referring probably to those 
made and designed for the suppression of riots. 
Did the British minister in ,his reply claim the right 
of interference in the domestic affairs of another 
nation.' On the contrary he excused the act upon 
the ground that it was a friendly letter of advice, 
designed for the Government only, and justified by 
the fact that his Government had rendered services 
to Spain, and was bound by treaty stipulations to 
aid and assist that Governmentagain, should there 
be a necessity for it. Mr. President, I believe it 
is the universal sense of mankind that the admis- 
sion of the principle of non-intervention is a corol- 
lary from the right of man to self-government and 
the existence of independence in a nation. Who that 
is familiar with the feelings of that period can for- 
get the anxiety with which we looked to the main- 
tenance of that principleatlhetimeof Mr. Monroe's 
celebrated declarations, or the importance which 
we attached to it.' We prepared ourselves to 
maintain the principle upon this continent, accord- 
ing to our own invariable practice towards the 
other nations of the earth, and were willing to stake 
all upon the issue. And yet here, in our own 
Senate, there is a proposition in direct opposition 
to that great principle, which at that time we were 
willing to stake everything to maintain. In 1823, 
I Mr. Monroe announced the foreign policy of the 
United States in such terms as these: 

"In tlie wars of European Povv(;rs, in matters rplating to 
themselves;, we have never taken any part, nor does it com- 
port with our policy to do so." " We owe it then-lore to 
candor and to the amicable relations existing between the 
United States and those Powers, to declare lliat we should 
consider any attempt on their pari to extend their system to 
any portion of this hemisphere as dangnrous to our peace 
and safety." " With the existingcolnniesanddependencie.-> 
of any ICiiropean Power we liave not interfered and shall 
not interfere. But with life Goveniments which liave de- 



dared their inilepoiiUencu nnd niuinliiiiinil it, ami wIiohc '' 
iiidcpcHd.'iii-r wi) liavi' on gri'iit CdiiHiiliriilinii and just |iriii- 
ci|iles ai'kiiiiwli'di;<Ml, w<' cmild not vii'W miy iiiliT|i'Hiii(iii, 
for llic purpose of opprvHriiin; thi'iii, or coiilrollinj; in •<">' 
otiier MiiUiiiur lln'ir df>(iny liy an Kiiropcmi I'owrr, in any 
otlirr li«lit than iw till' inaniriiHtaticm ol' an uiirrn lully dinpo- 
vtiiiii [(iwardM III!.' UnilL'd tjlatuH." 

A^ain, he siiyB : '! 

« Tlu! lato oveiit-s in Spain and Porlii|{al .-how that Kiiropo i 
la Htill iMiM'Khil. or this important lad no stroiiKir proof 
enn he addiiccil than that tin' iillii'd powirs slxmld have i 
Ihouulit it proper, on any prineipleii 8atisliictory to them- [ 
•elves, to have interpowd l>y I'oree in the interiiiil atlaira of l 
Spain. To what e.\ti-nt .such iiiterpotiition may he carried i! 
on the same principle, i.s a que.-^lion in which all iiide- 'i 
pendent powers, whose ROvernmi:iilii diller from theirs, are ! 
interested — even those most remote, nnd wiirely none more jj 
•o than the I'nited Stales. Our policy in regard to Kurope, ij 
which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which ! 
have so long agitated that quarter of the glohe, nevertheless j 
remains the same; which is, tiot lo inlrrfcre in llu- internal y 
concaiis of any of its poweri — to ooiisiiler the government i 
de facto as the legitimate govurnm<:nt for us to cultivate 
friendly relations with," &c. j 

These extracts, Mr. President, are sufficient to 
show that the great object of Mr. Monroe's de- 
clarations was, to protest against any departure , 
from the principle of non-intervention. lie as- ' 
serted what was historically true — that we had 
practised towards other Powcis upon this jirinciple 
from the institution of our Government to that 
period. Such, sir, has been the wise and consid- 
erate policy of our Government towards foreign 
nations heretofore — a policy which has preserved 
our peace with the rest of mankind for the greater 
portion of our national existence, which haschal- : 
lenged the respect of others, and under which , 
we ourselves have grown and prospered. Nay, 
more, sir: it has been our glory to have contrib- 
uted something towards procuring some of the 
advantages of the principle of non-intervention to 
other nations of the earth; and in doing so, we 
have added to the securities for the right of self- 
government in man. But we are now invoked to 
reverse this wise policy, and overthrow, as far as 
our declarations can do so, this great principle of 
international law, and, what is strange, we are 
invoked to do it under the pretence of showing 
sympathy for down-trodden humanity, and indig- 
nation at the violation of popular rights. Sir, what 
greater injury could we inflict on the cause of pop- 
ular rights in a system like the European — where 
arbitrary governments are the rule, and free govern- 
ments the exception — than to overthrow the princi- 
ple of non-intervention ? What new line of foreign 
policy could weadoptso likely to endangerourown 
peace, as to set the precedent of ourselves inter- 
fering in the domestic alVairs of others.' What 
greater outrage could we ofTer to the right of a 
people to govern themselves, than to assume the 
direction of affairs in countries not connected with 
H3 politically or physically, and over people who 
have never delegated to us such authority .' Where 
the authority is to be found for such an interfer- 
ence, I cannot divine — certainly not in the laws of 
nations, or in any ol the maxims upon which we 
have heretofore practised. 1 hear much said about 
the pulilic opinion of the world, and some talk of 
the punishment of those who sin against it. 1 fear 
there is some vague idea lurking in the popular 
mind, and insensibly influencing men to regard 
this public opinion of the world as a positive polit- 
ical force upon which it is allowalile for particular 
Governments to act. I have heard a reference 
made to certain very beautiful remarks of a Sen- 



ator from Mas.sachuscttB, upon the influence of 
public opinion upon this very Hungarian struggle, 
and it seems to hav?bcen supposed it wasaneces- 
sary conseriuencc of such views to entry out thia 
public opinion of the world in legislative action. 
Mr. President, I, sir, was struck with those re- 
marks; they were beautiful — and juht ns btauiiful, 
in the sense in which they were probably de- 
signed. Hut the public opinion of which he spnk« 
was not to bo executed by political or physical, 
but by a moral force; not a public opiimm to b« 
represented by any one Govt rnmcnt of the earth, 
or enforced by actual legislation. Sir, who or 
what body can undertake to collect or represent 
the public opinion of the world .^ A thousand in- 
visible rills swell the great stream of that public 
opinion whose current and whose course mark 
the s[)eed and the direction of the pro'^rcss of man. 
And who shall arm himself with physical force lo 
execute its decrees? Like heat and lighl, it per- 
vades the universe. It moves propio vigore — none 
can hasten or retard its cousre. Its subject is the hu- 
I man heart, its agents are thought and speech; it ia 
felt in every hamlet, in every house in the civilized 
world; unliiddcn, and often unwelcome, it enter« 
1 where it will; it penetrates into the secret recessea 
' of the soul of man; and the bravest and the mosi 
1 reckless pause under that invisible touch which 
1 can bind or loose the ties that unite him to his fel- 
1 low. None so high as to be beyond itis reach; 
and low indeed must be he who is beneath its vis- 
itations. Arm it, sir, with physical power ! whal 
need has it of such assistanre.' When right, it ia 
irresistible as truth itself; and it is only when 
■ wrong, when its own agentsare in rebellion againsl 
it, that its influence fails. As a moral power, its 
' influence upoi) man is great and beneficent; it« 
1 tendencies are towards the promotion of peace and 
progress; but once treat it as the subject of poli^- 
1 ical action, and the whole scene is not merely 
i changed, but reversed. What had been a com- 
mon blessing, will become the scourge and tire 
: curse of mankind in the collisions which it would 
: occasion. Peace will no longer be the general ruW 
' and war the exception, but war will be the rule 
I and peace the exception. I know, sir, that the 
sentiment is too prevalent, that this thing called 
1 public opinion authorizes and licenses us to inter- 
fere with the affairs of our neighbors. This sen- 
timent is ihe result of that antagonism which ia 
- goins: on in this great moral world of ours be- 
tween the principles of individualism and social- 
ism — an antagonism found everywhere and daily 
irrowing fiercer and deeper. In a Slate it is the 
contest between him who would preserve as much 
] of the right of individual action as is consistent 
:\ with the peace and security of society, and those 
who would give the majority not only the rights, 
! but, in the end, the property of each and of alL 
If you take a more extended view, and look to 
I nations, you find the same antagonism at work 
between tho.se who maintain the independence' 
\\ of each nation, and its right to act according 
j to its own will, so long as it respects the equal 
;! rights of others, and those who believe that 
i there is a sort of natural bond of federal union 
S! between the nations of the earth, and that every 
jl nation, under the authority of public opinion, is 
i! authorized to interpose and interfere with any and 
jj every other. The?e claim the right to take charge 
|l of the general interests of humanity, and oppose the 



6 



general will and opinion of man to the wishes and 
interests of any particular State. Sir, this attempt 
to set up the authority of the public opinion of the 
world in any particular State as above and beyond 
the sovereiii:nty of its people within their own 
borders, had its commencement, far as I can trace 
it, in the movements of Exeter Hall — movements 
emanating from excellent motives and pure designs, 
but which, nevertheless, led their authors to a sys- 
tem of interference in the affairs of others which 
has proved very dangerous to the peace of man- 
kind. Not content with acting upon their own 
Government, they undertook to move upon other 
nations, to influence their legislation. Not satisfied 
with the moral force of this public opinion as to 
the slave trade, which they were creating, they 
undertook to enforce it through political means and 
by physical power. Under their lead, their own 
Government became a general agitator on the sub- 
ject of slavery, intruded wherever it could upon 
the legislation of other countries, and had well- 
nigh, under the sanction of the public opinion of 
the v/orld, interpolated 9. new and dangerous pro- 
vision in the code of national law. The distin- 
guished Senator from Michigan was one of those 
who resisted this pretention most successfully, and 
he has won much just reputation by those exer- 
tions. But, sir, the evil has continued to increase. 
The same spirit of interference to which I have 
alluded as existing abroad soon reached our own 
country; and States have tampered and meddled 
with each other without just authority, until there 
is confusion throughout the land, and unhappy 
disputes have accumulated much more rapidly 
upon us than the means of settling them. Sir, 
we hear of world's conventions upon all possi- 
ble subjects, to bring associated power into play, 
for the purpose of bearing on and bearing down 
wills of individual men, or of individual nations, 
who oppose their movements. This results from 
the illusory idea, which I fear is far more prev- 
alent than is supposed, that there is a public opin- 
ion of mankind which is above tlie constitution and 
laws of particular States — an authority whichjusti- 
fiesus in meddling in the internal aftairs of other na- 
tions. Sir, we seean evidence of this to-day in the 
very resolution before us; for what but the idea that 
ouropinionasa people was entitled, asa component 
part of the public opinion of the world, to a cer- 
tain political force in other countries, could prompt 
such an interference as is contemplated in the do- 
mestic affairs of the Austrian Government? Mr. 
President, I am averse to all these centralizing and 
socialist movements. I belong to an older, and, 
1 trust, a better school of politics. I belong to 
the school which believes that government to be 
happiest and best which leaves the largest measure 
of the liberty of individual action which is con- 
sistent with the peace and safety of society; to 
that school which maintains that it is best for all 
the nations of the world that each of them should 
be left to enjoy its right of independent action in 
all cases in which its exercise is consistent with 
the equal rights of others. I know, sir, that 
in society these are the centripetal and centri- 
fugal forces, and that the order of nature con- 
sists in a just equilibrium. Increase the one 
too much, and the body flies to the centre, about 
which it should revolve; give an undue prepon- 
derance to the other force, the mass dissolves, 
and its wandering atoms are lost in space. In 



all human affairs there is a just mean; but I do 
not know that I could define in what it consits; 
nor would this be the time to do so, if I could do it. 
No matter how uncertain the point at which this 
mean may be found, sure it is, that the central- 
izing tendehcies have passed it. The tendency of 
every new movement seems to be in this direc- 
tion: to centralize and associate power seems to be 
the great object of political achievement at the 
present day. Sir, I at least have no sympathy for 
these movements. Neither can I claim for myself 
that extensive spirit of philanthropy which distin- 
guishes some gentlemen upon this floor. Espe- 
cially, sir, can I make no pretentions to such a 
philanthropy as that which a Senator from New 
York claims for himself. I mean, sir, that Sen- 
ator who would gather all mankind into one indis- 
criminate embrace, and who loves them all alike — 
in whose affections no distinctions are made as to 
the race, color, or condition of man, and who loves 
all men equally, whether they be English, French, 
German, Tartar, Negro, or Hottentot. Sir, the 
Senator from New York doubtless is an exception 
to the rule; but, as a general rule, I never knew 
one'of those men, who loved all mankind alike, 
who cared much for anybody but himself. I 
never knew one of them who, to borrow a favor- 
ite expression from my friend from South Caro- 
lina, " had not a hand for all, and a heart for 
none." But, sir, the Senator from New York is 
an exception, doubtless, to this rule. He loves all 
mankind, except himself,and would perhaps have 
loved himself if he had been born in Ireland. Mr. 
President, I have no such philanthropy; and I 
fear in that matter generally, I shall be deemed as 
little better than one of the wicked. I know, sir, 
that I shall be accused of a want of sympathy for 
the Hungarians, whose case excites sc much atten- 
tion here. So far as I am personally conctrned, I 
care nothing for such accusations, for I have a wit- 
ness within me which pronounces them false. But, 
sir, I should be unwilling to inflict a new pang upon 
the unfortunate Hungarian, by doing anything to 
give countenance to the idea that there was any mar, 
or class of men here who did not respect and sym- 
pathize with him in his misfortunes. I was no un- 
interested observer of his struggle — no unmoved 
witness of its final catastrophe. If my good wishes 
could have availed him, he had them all. I have 
studied their history with interest, and learned to 
admire and respect their national character. There 
is a wild mixture of Oriental fervor and western 
chivalry about them which has always made them 
objects of rather a romantic interest. History, 
that great record of human affairs, is full of start- 
ling contrasts and striking vicissitudes, and th« 
chapter of that great book which belongs to Hun- 
gary and her people is nearly as eventful as any. 
When I first heard , sir, that the Hungarian patriots 
had been forced to take refuge with the'Turk, and 
seek at his hands the charity of an asylum which 
Christendom refused them, I could but recall the 
day when that country was the bulwark of Christen- 
dom against the Infidel, and Hunniades made 
good its title to that debatable land between the 
Crescent and the Cross. When I saw who the 
oppressor was, whose foot was upon the neck of 
bleeding Hungary, I could but recur to the time 
when a noble ancestress of his, who to the loveli- 
ness of woman added the soul of a Cresar, threw 
herself upon those people for succor and protection. 



The scene nrose before me, as it nnpenrs on the 
pictured pn^e of Macuulay, in whicli she in rejire- 
eented iifpon horsuljack, weuk from recent sutl'iTiiii:, 
yet strotii; in will, tliiHlied under the weight uf St. 
Slepiien's inm crown, uud after a fashion of iier 
race, which would luwc been deemed exiravaKanl 
by any but an Oricnlul muif^uuition, wuviuf; the 
sword of State to the four quartei'H of tire heavi tin, 
and liiddini:; defiance to the earth. Still more visi- 
bly cauu; before me that other .sc(Mie, in winch the 
youMi; mother, with her child in litr arms, ap- 
peared before thcassembled matjuales of 1 lun^ary, 
and, coinplainiiifj that she wa.i deserted and op- 
pressed by the re.stofthe wculd, denuuided assist- 
ance and protection from them; ar.d, quick in 
answer to that appeal, all voic:c3 re.sponded a.s one, 
in the exclamation, " Let us die for our Kin;;; 
Maria Theresa!" True, even in that moment of 
enthusiastic fervor, not only to the jirinciplcs, but to 
the very formsoftheirconsiitutional liberty, they de- 
voted themselves not to the Empressof Germany, 
nor to the Clueen of Austria, Init to " their Kin^ 
Maria Theresa;" and king she was in all but her 
sex. The promise then made was redeemed in 
their blood; and the Croat, the Pandou, and the 
Hussar, as it is said, swejji the face of northern 
Germany, until their very names became words of 
terror wherever they were known. The faithful 
paije of liistory will attest how often the house of 
Flapsbufij has been indebted to the Hungarian 
lance and Hungarian loyalty for assistance in 
time of need. Never has it despaired when the 
road was left open for retreat from Vienna to Hun- 
gary; nor has it ever considered any of its defeats 
as total whilst reserves were yet left upon which 
it could retire in that land so devoted to its colors. 
It was an unhappy day for that house which dis- 
solved the spell of its name in Hungary, and broke 
the chain of old traditions which had mutually 
bound them together. It is hard to unite again the 
bonds of love, when once they have been severed; 
and the Hungarian will loii<j remember in bitter- 
ncs.« that the hand which has crushed him ought 
to have been extended to him in love, if there had 
been ;;ratitude in the heart that guided it. It is said 
to have been the opinion of Dembinski before the 
Hungarian war, in which he figured so largely, that 
Austria might unite under her lead those Hunnish 
and Sclavonic races who occupy so lar^e a portion 
of the beautiful provinces of eastern Europe, and 
thus become not only wliat her name purports, 
(oester-reich,) "the Kingdom of the East," but the 
first power on that continent. Mr. President, it 
is not for me to say how much of truth or er- 
ror there might have been in such a conjecture. 
Certain it is, however, that a new formation ia 
going on in those beautiful regions. Certain it 
IS, tliat the " disjecta membra" of the great Scla- 
vonic body are slowly knitting together. It is 
very generally supposed that the elements of a 
new and formidable power, to be composed 
probably of those mixed races, are nowgradully 
being gathered together. The advent of this 
power is looked for with doubt or apprehension, 
as speculation assigns the part to be cast for it by 
destiny, as being for or against the Russian influ- 
ence. That it is to [)lay an important part in the 
affairs of Europe, all seem to suppose. In this 
new organization, the Magyar race may occupy a 



high and im(io.sing (dace, if ihey run only learn to 
.shake hands cordially with the Sclavoniun, whose 
end.s ought tube ukiii to hi8 own. I trust, itir, that 
such may bcthc dentiny of the llunu'urian; and the 
fuiurit is hopeful ijeforc him, tdiould he choose to 
lead in the ^reat Sfluvonian movement. Placed, 
as is the Mai^yar race, at the head of Iluiiijariaii 
society, which is als<t largely coniposcd of Scla- 
voniaii.N, the former may choo-sc an exulted place 
if it will pariicipaie cordially in the general move- 
ment. Such I bcliive is the only hope for the 
Magyar ra<'e, l)Ut probably a sure and a bri^rht one, 
if he will |e;irn to nali/.e hi.s position. But, if he 
stands fixed and immovable, rcsi.iiing the great 
Teutonic movement, on the one side and the Scla- 
vonic on the other ' .ustbe crushed as between 
the upper and the t .tier mill-stone. Hard as has 
lieen the lesson taught the Magyar r:>ce in its re- 
! cent struggles, a knowledge of the truth which il 
I teaches may be worth all the sufl't ring which 
I brought the truth home to il, that its hopes rested 
I on a cordial pariicipatiim in the great Sclavonic 
I movement. If there is tio hope here for the Hun- 
garian, I .'<ee none before him. It would do no 
1 good for foreign powers to interpose in his favor 
' atid give him armed assistance: still less would it 
I be of any avail to ofl'er him such a resolution of 
sympathy as this. There is not, sir, on the page 
of history an instance of a nation which has main- 
tained its liberty by foreign aid; for the mo- 
ment the protecting hand is withdrawn, it must 
fall unless it has some internal resources — some 
means within itself of maintaining its independ- 
ence and for self-defence. 1 have said, sir, thai 
this resolution of sympathy will do the Hungarian 
cause no good. But is that enough to say? Is 
there no danger that it may do that brave but un- 
fortunate people some harm .' It has been said 
by wise and observing men — we have the author- 
ity of McCuUoch for the assertion — that the final 
catastrophe of Poland was probably hastened by 
imprudent speeches made in the British House of 
Commons and the French Chamber of Deputies. 
It is said that those imprudent but sympathizing 
speeclies awakened false hopes in Poland, and led 
to unwise movements there. Is there no danger 
that such a course of action as is proposed here 
might give rise to unfounded hojies in Hungary, 
or increase, perhaps, their suffeiings by irritating 
those who govern them .' But, sir, be that as it 
may with regard to Hungary, I am not prepared 
to take this step from considerations of what is 
due to my own country. I give Hungary my 
j best wishes, my earnest sympathy; but I prefer 
I my own country to any other, and I cannot sacri- 
I fice its interests for those of another. I was sent 
here to legislate, not for foreign nations, but my 
own. I will not abandon my own duties in the 
attempt to discharge those of another. It would 
doubtless be pleasing to any generous mind to in- 
dulge the demands of sympathy; yet, sir, truth 
and justice are of higher obligation, and ought to 
be of higher consideration still. Mr. President, I 
cannot vote for this resolution. I owe it not only 
to my own country, but to Ihe rights of man, of 
which so much is said, to preserve the wise and 
long-established policy of the former, and to stand 
by theprincipleof non-intervention as a high moial 
defence and security for the othe^;. 



Priatcd at the Congressional Globe Office. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



011 898 472 9 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0011 



898 472 9 f 



^ 



